"Alabama lawmakers gave final approval on Tuesday to a measure that would ban most abortions in the state. But the Senate’s vote did not immediately outlaw the procedure, and it is far from clear when, or even if, the measure will ultimately take effect.

Here’s a guide to what happened, and what might happen next.
What did Alabama do?

The bill that the Republican-controlled Legislature overwhelmingly approved would prohibit abortions at every stage of pregnancy. It includes an exception for cases where a woman’s health is at “serious” risk, but lawmakers rejected a proposal to add exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

Women who have abortions would not be prosecuted under the measure, but doctors could be charged with a felony and face up to 99 years in prison for performing the procedure.

[Several states have moved to curtail abortion but Alabama’s measure goes farther.]"

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution makes no specific mention of abortion, and so it would appear that the abortion question is one that should be left to the states.

But in 1973 the Supreme Court decided that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment provides a woman with a fundamental "right to privacy" that allows a woman to decide to have an abortion if she chooses. The Court went on to say that this right was absolute in the first trimester of pregnancy, subject to some regulation in the second trimester, but that abortions may be banned entirely, except to save the life of the mother, in the third trimester.

Ever since then, it has been a subject of hot debate as to whether or not this decision was an example of judicial overreach; that is, making law instead of interpreting law. Legal scholars disagree with each other on this question.

Clearly, Alabama must know that this law they are enacting will get appealed up to the Supreme Court. Many states have regulated and restricted abortion consistent with the Roe v Wade decision, but none have restricted it this much. So it will be an interesting case to watch. Undoubtedly, Alabama's law will be overturned by a federal district judge or by a federal appeals court, after which time it will land in the Supreme Court. Until it is decided by the Supreme Court, the rulings of lower courts are meaningless.

My personal opinion is that the 1973 Supreme Court did overreach. My belief is that a majority of the justices simply wanted to legalize abortion, and so they made this rather tortured interpretation of the 14th Amendment to make it legal. I have held the belief for a long time that the Supreme Court should apply the Constitution, not rewrite it to suit their personal opinions and biases. Not just on the abortion question, but on all questions.

My opinion is absent what my personal opinion of abortion is. What I want is for the intent of our Founders to be followed as written into our Constitution.

We have a process for changing the Constitution. So if we wish to amend the Constitution to address the abortion question, we may. But until a constitutional amendment is enacted that addresses the abortion question, I believe it should be left up to the individual states as stated in the 10th Amendment.

Seth

“I shall pass through this world but once. Any good that I can do or any kindness I can show to any human being, let me do it now. Let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.” - Stephen Grellet

HBS Guy wrote:This is to pverturn Roe v Wade. Women’s rights just are not important in the US.

Whose rights? The baby’s?

What about a father’s reproductive rights?

So the rapist, abuser, incest abuser and an unborn child, have more rights than the women no matter her condition. Alabama has banned any form of abortion, even if it's rape or incest. This is proof that god nutter still blame the women for any form or sexual happening even if she is bashed and rape and her father brother etc rapes her. She still has to have their baby and be reminded of it for the rest of her life, now that's the actions of true loving followers of the god.

This is the sort of reply you'd expect from a right wing sexist god nutters, forget about the woman, her physical or mental state, it's what the moronic bloke wants that counts, the rapist or father of the women. This is the sort of thinking which has created thousands of years of sexual and physical abuse by male members of the god cult, against females and kids. Nothing has changed, morons are morons and have never evolved past deranged insanity.

HBS Guy wrote:This is to pverturn Roe v Wade. Women’s rights just are not important in the US.

It's only going to get worse for women in that hell hole. Alabama, is an extreme right-wing god nutter run state and they have done this because they know it will be taken to the supreme court. Especially as Rump has stacked the courts to be right wing evangelist christian dominated, Alabama has probably been told, do it the court will support gods wishes. Many of the judges believe abortion is not covered in the constitution and us a state matter, with only one 80 year old women on the full bench, Alabama believes it is on a winner. If that happens, you can be sure the door will open to every freedom that irks god nutters and all hell will break loose. Hope they live telecast it to Alpha Centauri 3.

“I shall pass through this world but once. Any good that I can do or any kindness I can show to any human being, let me do it now. Let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.” - Stephen Grellet

HBS Guy wrote:This is to pverturn Roe v Wade. Women’s rights just are not important in the US.

Whose rights? The baby’s?

What about a father’s reproductive rights?

So the rapist, abuser, incest abuser and an unborn child, have more rights than the women no matter her condition. Alabama has banned any form of abortion, even if it's rape or incest. This is proof that god nutter still blame the women for any form or sexual happening even if she is bashed and rape and her father brother etc rapes her. She still has to have their baby and be reminded of it for the rest of her life, now that's the actions of true loving followers of the god.

This is the sort of reply you'd expect from a right wing sexist god nutters, forget about the woman, her physical or mental state, it's what the moronic bloke wants that counts, the rapist or father of the women. This is the sort of thinking which has created thousands of years of sexual and physical abuse by male members of the god cult, against females and kids. Nothing has changed, morons are morons and have never evolved past deranged insanity.

I already said that I would allow abortion in rape cases, but you’d rather ignore it and call me names. You didn’t address a single question I asked.

SethBullock wrote:The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution makes no specific mention of abortion, and so it would appear that the abortion question is one that should be left to the states.

But in 1973 the Supreme Court decided that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment provides a woman with a fundamental "right to privacy" that allows a woman to decide to have an abortion if she chooses. The Court went on to say that this right was absolute in the first trimester of pregnancy, subject to some regulation in the second trimester, but that abortions may be banned entirely, except to save the life of the mother, in the third trimester.

Ever since then, it has been a subject of hot debate as to whether or not this decision was an example of judicial overreach; that is, making law instead of interpreting law. Legal scholars disagree with each other on this question.

Clearly, Alabama must know that this law they are enacting will get appealed up to the Supreme Court. Many states have regulated and restricted abortion consistent with the Roe v Wade decision, but none have restricted it this much. So it will be an interesting case to watch. Undoubtedly, Alabama's law will be overturned by a federal district judge or by a federal appeals court, after which time it will land in the Supreme Court. Until it is decided by the Supreme Court, the rulings of lower courts are meaningless.

My personal opinion is that the 1973 Supreme Court did overreach. My belief is that a majority of the justices simply wanted to legalize abortion, and so they made this rather tortured interpretation of the 14th Amendment to make it legal. I have held the belief for a long time that the Supreme Court should apply the Constitution, not rewrite it to suit their personal opinions and biases. Not just on the abortion question, but on all questions.

My opinion is absent what my personal opinion of abortion is. What I want is for the intent of our Founders to be followed as written into our Constitution.

We have a process for changing the Constitution. So if we wish to amend the Constitution to address the abortion question, we may. But until a constitutional amendment is enacted that addresses the abortion question, I believe it should be left up to the individual states as stated in the 10th Amendment.

Seth

I'm wondering if the founding fathers where interested so much in women rights, then why didn't they make it legal for women to vote when they made the constitution ?

Bongalong... for some reason women are just so superior to anything that ever existed or will ever exist!
Shellandshilo1956 ….. Even an annoying troll, has the right to free speech.

SethBullock wrote:The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution makes no specific mention of abortion, and so it would appear that the abortion question is one that should be left to the states.

But in 1973 the Supreme Court decided that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment provides a woman with a fundamental "right to privacy" that allows a woman to decide to have an abortion if she chooses. The Court went on to say that this right was absolute in the first trimester of pregnancy, subject to some regulation in the second trimester, but that abortions may be banned entirely, except to save the life of the mother, in the third trimester.

Ever since then, it has been a subject of hot debate as to whether or not this decision was an example of judicial overreach; that is, making law instead of interpreting law. Legal scholars disagree with each other on this question.

Clearly, Alabama must know that this law they are enacting will get appealed up to the Supreme Court. Many states have regulated and restricted abortion consistent with the Roe v Wade decision, but none have restricted it this much. So it will be an interesting case to watch. Undoubtedly, Alabama's law will be overturned by a federal district judge or by a federal appeals court, after which time it will land in the Supreme Court. Until it is decided by the Supreme Court, the rulings of lower courts are meaningless.

My personal opinion is that the 1973 Supreme Court did overreach. My belief is that a majority of the justices simply wanted to legalize abortion, and so they made this rather tortured interpretation of the 14th Amendment to make it legal. I have held the belief for a long time that the Supreme Court should apply the Constitution, not rewrite it to suit their personal opinions and biases. Not just on the abortion question, but on all questions.

My opinion is absent what my personal opinion of abortion is. What I want is for the intent of our Founders to be followed as written into our Constitution.

We have a process for changing the Constitution. So if we wish to amend the Constitution to address the abortion question, we may. But until a constitutional amendment is enacted that addresses the abortion question, I believe it should be left up to the individual states as stated in the 10th Amendment.

Seth

I'm wondering if the founding fathers where interested so much in women rights, then why didn't they make it legal for women to vote when they made the constitution ?

Apparently, they weren't interested in the rights of women or slaves. That's why they made the amendment processes. We fixed it 99 years ago. Not many women remember a time when they were not allowed to vote. It's ancient history.

HBS Guy wrote:This is to pverturn Roe v Wade. Women’s rights just are not important in the US.

Whose rights? The baby’s?

What about a father’s reproductive rights?

So the rapist, abuser, incest abuser and an unborn child, have more rights than the women no matter her condition. Alabama has banned any form of abortion, even if it's rape or incest. This is proof that god nutter still blame the women for any form or sexual happening even if she is bashed and rape and her father brother etc rapes her. She still has to have their baby and be reminded of it for the rest of her life, now that's the actions of true loving followers of the god.

This is the sort of reply you'd expect from a right wing sexist god nutters, forget about the woman, her physical or mental state, it's what the moronic bloke wants that counts, the rapist or father of the women. This is the sort of thinking which has created thousands of years of sexual and physical abuse by male members of the god cult, against females and kids. Nothing has changed, morons are morons and have never evolved past deranged insanity.

I already said that I would allow abortion in rape cases, but you’d rather ignore it and call me names. You didn’t address a single question I asked.

To pick up your rape exclusion. Does that baby have no rights somehow? If so, how so?

HBS Guy wrote:This is to pverturn Roe v Wade. Women’s rights just are not important in the US.

Whose rights? The baby’s?

What about a father’s reproductive rights?

So the rapist, abuser, incest abuser and an unborn child, have more rights than the women no matter her condition. Alabama has banned any form of abortion, even if it's rape or incest. This is proof that god nutter still blame the women for any form or sexual happening even if she is bashed and rape and her father brother etc rapes her. She still has to have their baby and be reminded of it for the rest of her life, now that's the actions of true loving followers of the god.

This is the sort of reply you'd expect from a right wing sexist god nutters, forget about the woman, her physical or mental state, it's what the moronic bloke wants that counts, the rapist or father of the women. This is the sort of thinking which has created thousands of years of sexual and physical abuse by male members of the god cult, against females and kids. Nothing has changed, morons are morons and have never evolved past deranged insanity.

I already said that I would allow abortion in rape cases, but you’d rather ignore it and call me names. You didn’t address a single question I asked.

To pick up your rape exclusion. Does that baby have no rights somehow? If so, how so?

The whole abortion argument hinges on when life begins. We can argue about that forever, but neither of us can prove our case. I'm of the mind that the baby is alive and is the perfectly blameless. However, in cases of rape, the baby was forced upon the mother and since the argument isn't proven, I'd allow the woman to make the assertion and get an abortion at their own expense. That's why I would begrudgingly allow it. If it were ever settled and proven that the baby is definitely a living being with rights, I wouldn't condone any abortion. I don't want to be involved in what I consider murder in any way.

It's kind of far fetched, but what if we found a way to communicate with a baby in the womb?

Aussie wrote:The 'baby' of a rape is also entirely innocent. How does it not have the same rights you say every 'baby' has?

Texan, I reckon you can't logically have any exceptions.

if its thought the baby could kill the mother who get's to live ?

Then you have to go with who has the more viable chance at life. Typically, the mother. If the mother is in a coma and you don't know if she'll ever wake up, I'd lean toward the baby, but those situations are very rare.

SethBullock wrote:The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution makes no specific mention of abortion, and so it would appear that the abortion question is one that should be left to the states.

But in 1973 the Supreme Court decided that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment provides a woman with a fundamental "right to privacy" that allows a woman to decide to have an abortion if she chooses. The Court went on to say that this right was absolute in the first trimester of pregnancy, subject to some regulation in the second trimester, but that abortions may be banned entirely, except to save the life of the mother, in the third trimester.

Ever since then, it has been a subject of hot debate as to whether or not this decision was an example of judicial overreach; that is, making law instead of interpreting law. Legal scholars disagree with each other on this question.

Clearly, Alabama must know that this law they are enacting will get appealed up to the Supreme Court. Many states have regulated and restricted abortion consistent with the Roe v Wade decision, but none have restricted it this much. So it will be an interesting case to watch. Undoubtedly, Alabama's law will be overturned by a federal district judge or by a federal appeals court, after which time it will land in the Supreme Court. Until it is decided by the Supreme Court, the rulings of lower courts are meaningless.

My personal opinion is that the 1973 Supreme Court did overreach. My belief is that a majority of the justices simply wanted to legalize abortion, and so they made this rather tortured interpretation of the 14th Amendment to make it legal. I have held the belief for a long time that the Supreme Court should apply the Constitution, not rewrite it to suit their personal opinions and biases. Not just on the abortion question, but on all questions.

My opinion is absent what my personal opinion of abortion is. What I want is for the intent of our Founders to be followed as written into our Constitution.

We have a process for changing the Constitution. So if we wish to amend the Constitution to address the abortion question, we may. But until a constitutional amendment is enacted that addresses the abortion question, I believe it should be left up to the individual states as stated in the 10th Amendment.

Seth

I'm wondering if the founding fathers where interested so much in women rights, then why didn't they make it legal for women to vote when they made the constitution ?

Customs of the time. But they did enact a process for changing the Constitution, and it was changed later in our history to give women the vote.

“I shall pass through this world but once. Any good that I can do or any kindness I can show to any human being, let me do it now. Let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.” - Stephen Grellet

HBS Guy wrote:This is to pverturn Roe v Wade. Women’s rights just are not important in the US.

Whose rights? The baby’s?

What about a father’s reproductive rights?

So the rapist, abuser, incest abuser and an unborn child, have more rights than the women no matter her condition. Alabama has banned any form of abortion, even if it's rape or incest. This is proof that god nutter still blame the women for any form or sexual happening even if she is bashed and rape and her father brother etc rapes her. She still has to have their baby and be reminded of it for the rest of her life, now that's the actions of true loving followers of the god.

This is the sort of reply you'd expect from a right wing sexist god nutters, forget about the woman, her physical or mental state, it's what the moronic bloke wants that counts, the rapist or father of the women. This is the sort of thinking which has created thousands of years of sexual and physical abuse by male members of the god cult, against females and kids. Nothing has changed, morons are morons and have never evolved past deranged insanity.

I already said that I would allow abortion in rape cases, but you’d rather ignore it and call me names. You didn’t address a single question I asked.

To pick up your rape exclusion. Does that baby have no rights somehow? If so, how so?

A child conceived by rape is just as innocent as a child conceived through consensual sex. But this is one of those judgements that, in an imperfect world, we make. I think the question is whether or not the victim of a rape should be allowed to end the pregnancy, helping her to cope with what happened to her. Weighed against the right of the child to live, our laws generally favor the right of the mother to end the pregnancy.

“I shall pass through this world but once. Any good that I can do or any kindness I can show to any human being, let me do it now. Let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.” - Stephen Grellet